Should there be a "World Police Force" run by UN?

[Bandit]

Should this force be used mainly with US forces but run totally by the UN? The US is the major force on the planet but IMHO it should not be the police of the world. I believe there should be a world police force and I believe it should be run by the UN however without full US support they have proven to be fairly ineffective. Or do you believe we should just go on with total lack of law and order world wide? The main fear is that we would lose our autonomy. Is this a valid fear?

[searchingforlight]

1. I believe that the time has come for us form an exploratory group to

study the possibility of creating a new World Order. We are not quite ready for it yet but it is coming and it is necessary.

A United military charged with peacekeeping would be a good start. They should be more powerful than any one nation.

We have world problems that affect us all and we need world solutions, not solutions that just benefit a few.

[Jim Sagle]

2. The whole idea really sucks.

[Hanuman]

7. 2nd that...

No matter how you feel about the US endeavors abroad, I don't like the idea of the likes of Sudan, Libya, Cuba, etc. sitting on the "Police Council" and passing laws or judgement on our military personell- or worse yet, attempting to arrest, detain and punish.

Dumb idea.

[RichM]

3. There cannot really be such a thing as "run totally by the UN," because

the UN, in effect, is always run by the great powers anyway, the US chief among them.

In the abstract, a "World Police Force" seems a desirable thing, if it was truly independent of the influence of any one country, or group of countries, & if it really acted on "pure" principles on behalf of "all humanity." But in practise, the UN is controlled maybe 75% by the US (when you add in all its capacity for bullying & bribing), and most of the other 25% is France, Britain, & Germany. So it still amounts to control by the developed capitalist countries.

The main danger isn't that "we would lose our autonomy." It's that our government is trying to crush the rest of the world, depriving them of their autonomy.

[uptohere]

4. I doubt that any nation would allow them jurisdiction

n/t

[Maple]

5. Yes

The UN should do it, not any one nation.

NATO has nothing to do anymore...make them the military wing of the UN...just open NATO up to more than the 'north atlantic' countries.

[StandWatie]

6. remake the UN

get rid of the Security Council and make it democratic and it would be a good idea.

[slackmaster]

8. No fucking way

Sounds like a great way to get everyone in the world to hate us even more.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. I would agree with it

ONLY if the council was dissolved and the UN became completely democratic along with a clear consitutional guidline for the policeforce. I know I will get slammed her ebut the UN really is a huge joke and nothing more. The USA decided near everything they do and there are permanent members who can veto ANYTHING they dont like. Also, no nation's army should be part of a police force.

[Blue_Chill]

9. no.

Should this force be used mainly with US forces but run totally by the UN?

No. No way in hell would I agree to turn over control of a section of the american armed forced to the UN.

The UN should build their own army from the international community but not any equipment above that which is needed for light fighting and peace keeping. The heavy stuff should stay in the hands of independent nations.

I would not want a body that has no nation to actually defend to control anything capable on it's own to mount a aggressive attack. Nor would I turn over control of men and women that signed up to defend the US to the UN.

[Clete]

11. Okay, so I'm a trekkie.

But the Federation of Planets sounds good to me, but it could be the Federation of Nations or the Commonwealth of Nations. I don't think anyone should be banned though like in the UN. All nations should be members including the ones we don't like.

The Federation/Commonwealth could set up standards for military, human rights, world trade or any other matter that comes up that is international. I think they could have treaties for use of the military of different nations as an international force in case rogue nations or national leaders need to be dealt with.

I think the age of empires or colonial powers ruling the world are over if we intend to preserve the world for the future.

[el_gato]

12. HELL NO

can you say tyranny?

it's already bad enough.

what about the rights of the individual?

do you think you would ever get a fair hearing?

Bow down before the New World Order!

I can picture it now. Some tiny nation says "uh we don't
want to be a part of this new program."

WHAM in come the global cops. It's what the U.S. is trying
to establish now.

[Clete]

15. If it were Democratic it wouldn't have to be.

If a nation doesn't want to be a part of it, they should be able to abstain. There would be a seat at the table though if they changed their mind.

The only bad thing I could think of is if this small nation was being run like the Taliban ruled Afghanistan or Pinochet's Chile, then I think the governing body of nations would have a right to pressure them to change their policies to the humanitarian guidelines set down by the majority of nations or risk being removed by military action.

[el_gato]

17. pie in the sky

it would never work that way


your just creating another massive tool for authoritarian abuse.

[hang a left]

35. no duh!

This is right out of the New World Order handbook, what the hell?

[Maple]

13. The UN needs an advertising campaign

Because apparently very few people on here understand what the UN is or does.

Or even how it's set up and why.

Much less what they've already agreed to.

[Character Assassin]

14. Two words: fuck no.

[Maple]

16. It's amazing

how most of you take Bush's position on the UN.

Especially on a Democratic site.

It appears that the idea of an American Empire running the world is very popular here.

[el_gato]

18. wrong

the problem is creating a global force that will only be abused by the most powerful.

this is exactly what is wrong with the u.s. today

[Maple]

19. Right

a global force run by the globe...is not the same as one country trying to run the globe.

Which is what we have now.

[el_gato]

22. look at what has happened to America

we are supposed to be a democracy but look at
how it has been hijacked and then tell me the
same thing would not happen with a global police force

[Maple]

You still have a democracy

You just don't like the way they voted.

Even your own candidates.

A global police force would need the backing of the UN...and that's currently 191 countries.

Not just one.

[el_gato]

25. the UN is not democratic

The UN is supposed to be that global police force.

It is also important to point out the sanctions on
iraq and how many iraqis died over the ten years those
sanctions were in place.

[Maple]

27. The UN was set up

by your country to a great extent.

And everyone has a vote.

The Security council members have a veto...and your country has used it more than anyone else.

If the UN needs reorganizing, then fine, it can be reorganized if the members agree.

And no, I don't recall saying that everything the UN has ever done has been brilliant...how could it be, it's run by fallible human beings.

However, a global organization is the best bet the world has for stopping wars, and making a level playing field.

[el_gato]

30. no shit!

you are telling me something i don't know?

Just because the UN has been a lapdog for the powers in the U.S.
for the majority of it's existence doesn't mean I should support it.

The further up the chain of power you go the less democratic it becomes.

You are asking for the creation of something that you would have no influence over.

[Maple]

33. The UN has been seen to be

the 'lapdog' of various countries over the years, not just the US.

It's a matter of perception more than reality.

The top of the chain is the Security council...and they all have a vote and a veto. Quite equal.

It simply leaves out the other countries...and it was set up that way after WWII deliberately. Since that was half a century ago, it's certainly time to consider a change.

Change has been suggested many times...but it takes awhile to find a solution 191 countries all agree on you know.

Democracy is like that...it takes time. A dictatorship could do it immediately. Which do you prefer?

You would have the same influence over it as any other country. That would be total democracy in the UN.

If as the US you want MORE control over it than say...Romania or Libya....well now you know how the Security council came into being don't you.

[hang a left]

37. what would be the freakin difference

if they were all in on it together, you know one world government, one single currency, one world religion. I think global cops would be a good start, don't you?

[Maple]

40. You often think

the whole world is out to get you? Hmmmm.

PS...there wouldn't be any currency...and no world religion.

[hang a left]

45. yes, I'll admit to being paranoid

I'll give you that. Ok right, universal cashless system, microchips, and I believe satanism. I have been reading too much lately. But in my own defense you DU ers link me there and off I go. It was so much easier just wanting Bush out of office.

[Maple]

55. Well I'll go with

a universal cashless system, but hardly satanism. :D

LOL it is a fun conversation to remake the world on here though hmmm?

[StandWatie]

20. ...

a bunch of libertarians and Israeliphiles chimed in.

[Maple]

21. Is THAT who they are!

I wondered...because it's just the kind of thing that would end the US feeling the need to go to war or prop up dictatorships all over the world.

Americans, of all people, should see the value in turning the job over to a multilateral worldwide force.

[el_gato]

24. the levers of power are always abused

[Character Assassin]

23. And?

One doesn't have to be a libertarian to look at the history and the internal partisanship of the UN to see what at utterly terrible idea this is, rife with potential for abuse.

One only has to be one step above brain-dead.

[Maple]

26. Everything has the potential

for abuse.

What would you prefer to do? Go hide in a cave?

Or something more practical?

The UN has done very well since it's inception...especially with the Cold War distorting it's aims.

But we didn't go to WWIII, and a lot of good has been done around the world. Considering the strains it was put under...that's remarkable.

Now it needs the tools to do a proper job in a new century.

[Character Assassin]

29. The UN had precious little, if not nothing, to do with preventing WWIII

What would you prefer to do? Go hide in a cave?

I'd prefer that there were no UN controlled worldwide police force. I'd have thought that was obvious from my post.

Or something more practical?

It's a non-issue that doesn't need a contrived 'solution'.

The UN has done very well since it's inception...especially with the Cold War distorting it's aims.

Other than some immunizations, we disagree completely.

But we didn't go to WWIII, and a lot of good has been done around the world. Considering the strains it was put under...that's remarkable.

Again, we disagree.

Now it needs the tools to do a proper job in a new century.

A police force with worldwide authority is not one of them.

[Maple]

31. The UN had a great deal to do with it

It kept the two powers from going overboard in all their little brushfires around the world. And it was hard going...and at times a nuclear holocaust looked inevitable...but it didn't happen...and it wasn't because the US or USSR were any great peace loving nations that wouldn't think of pushing a button.

If you insist that everything can be abused...so we shouldn't do anything at all...you are hiding in a cave.

That's saying that if something can't be guaranteed a 110% success it's first time out...then we shouldn't try at all.

World peace is not a 'non-issue'

If all you know about the UN is some vaccine drive, perhaps your knowledge of the world is faulty. I recommend some reading instead of ranting.

A police force with worldwide authority is exactly what we need.

If we'd had a proper one before now...you wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq and screaming about it.

[el_gato]

34. if you want world peace

the first step would be to abolish the CIA

your solution will only make things worse

[Maple]

36. The CIA is an internal American problem

and it's up to Americans to abolish it.

It has nothing to do with the UN or any other global body.

Except they could be arrested and jailed if they're found to be operating in someone else's country.

[el_gato]

41. I guess you missed out on what going on

in the lead up to this invasion

the bugging of UNSC members etc.

The CIA operates on a global level influencing other
countries with covert activities all the time.
Has the UN put a stop to it?

[Maple]

43. I missed nothing

The CIA can't be 'stopped' by other countries.

It's an internal US problem.

Stop it yourselves.

The only thing a global body can do is arrest such people when they are in someone else's country.

Does the UN currently have the resources to do it? No.

You contradict yourself on all this....as do the others on here...

First you want to stop the UN from having any money or troops or backing or other resources....then you expect it to perform miracles!

[el_gato]

48. I don't expect the UN to do anything

don't put words in my mouth

the UN is worthless because it will always be sidelined by the most powerful elements of this world.

Until you remove the levers of power they will be abused.
This reason is why I advocate getting rid of the CIA and
cutting U.S. defense budget. The u.s. military should only
be used to prevent an invasion on u.s. soil. Since an invasion
would never happen we could drastically cut our defense spending.
The problem is the pigs in the military industrial complex would
never stand for what I advocate.

Ever expanding militarization of the planet has proven to be a
disaster and you are just advocating throwing gas on the fire.

[Maple]

53. Well START expecting it to do something

and then back it with resources and troops.

Otherwise you are facing endless wars a la Bush.

Because the US won't stay out of other countries, and you know that...but if there was no reason for them to be there...they could stay in the US.

You want outcomes that are not possible without input I'm afraid.

[el_gato]

58. wrong

If the UN comes in and bails bush out of this Iraq fiasco
he will be marching on to other countries.

I'm afraid it is necessary for the people of the U.S. to learn a
hard lesson here.

[Maple]

63. Time frame

The UN we're talking about is as a world police force...with it's own military. A renewed UN.

Not something going into Iraq this week to let Bush off the hook.

[Character Assassin]

46. That's certainly a curious conclusion

It kept the two powers from going overboard in all their little brushfires around the world. And it was hard going...and at times a nuclear holocaust looked inevitable...but it didn't happen...and it wasn't because the US or USSR were any great peace loving nations that wouldn't think of pushing a button.

Oh, please. It wasn't because the UN could do or did do anything about it. The superpower rivalry worked against the organization's collective security mechanism. Whatever restraint was shown by the superpowers was self-restraint, induced by the existence of nuclear weapons and the fear of mutual destruction. The UN amounted to barely more than a sideshow, if that.

If you insist that everything can be abused...so we shouldn't do anything at all...you are hiding in a cave.

I don't see the need for one, that's why I object to it.

But That's saying that if something can't be guaranteed a 110% success it's first time out...then we shouldn't try at all.

Again, it's not needed.

World peace is not a 'non-issue'.

I see absolutely 100% no evidence that a UN worldwide police force would bring about, promulgate, effectively promote and/or assure world peace. If you've got the evidence, let's see it.

If all you know about the UN is some vaccine drive, perhaps your knowledge of the world is faulty. I recommend some reading instead of ranting.

I suggest actually reviewing its record rather than simply repeating mantras about the how great the UN is. Have they done at least marginally well in vaccinations, illiteracy campaigns, AIDS research? Sure. But a review of its record in worldwide refugee problems, Rwanda in 1994, Somalia, human rights violations in Bosnia and Croatia and East Timor, they utterly and totally have dropped the ball. In the over 250 conflicts around the world from 1945 onwards, I see nothing to indicate that the UN was ever the decisive factor in crisis abatement. It was the superpowers, and they alone.

A police force with worldwide authority is exactly what we need.

See above. The UN has a history of total fuckups in that area. If you like have your police force as a total fuckup, I can't support that.

If we'd had a proper one before now...you wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq and screaming about it.

There is no way to support that statement, and I'm not screaming about Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Maple]

65. Apparently

you know little about the UN's past history.

Or about the US and the USSR being keen to be peaceful or worried about the 'other guys' missiles. LOL

There is very much a need for a global solution to global problems.

Famine, disease, pollution and war are all global problems...and unless you think we should just let it all continue...or the US should, or even can, solve it all....we need a global body to do it.

Again you want to starve the UN of resources, and then complain because it didn't produce all the miracles you wanted it too over the years. This takes effort you know...doesn't all happen by itself.

There is no Santa Claus.

You want solutions with no effort whatever...or the lazy man's way to world peace.

Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Resources?

Well, just how much "resources" is the UN going to need for its own army? Look at how much the U.S. spends on it right now. Where do you think the UN will get that kind of money? A worldwide tax? (Not that many nations would accept that idea.)

[Maple]

69. The US hasn't paid it's dues in years

Bush finally coughed up a little when he wanted a favor.

How much would the UN need for it's own military?

Well how much does NATO need?

You contribute to that without all this hysteria.

And with more nations involved using NATO as a UN armed wing...it would cost you less.

Perhaps you'd just rather contribute to war rather than peace?

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Not sure this would contribute to peace

I think this would set up a powerful entity that would almost automiatically go to war with the existing powerful nations like Russia, the U.S. and probably China.

Do you honestly think nations would stop funding their own militaries? No, because there would be no guarantee the UN would act, would act quickly or would act correctly. Given its history in all controversial matters, that's a safe bet.

NATO is not what we are talking about. NATO is an alliance only. The existing nations work together, but keep their militaries. This is a New Model Army, not a retread alliance.

[Character Assassin]

71. Apparently, you turn a blind eye to history

you know little about the UN's past history.

Indeed, I do. That's why I posted what I did. Every Cold War conflict since 1945, proxy or otherwise, was eventually ended or abated by the two powers, either directly or simply deciding to withdraw support or resources, with the UN coming in afterwards.

Or about the US and the USSR being keen to be peaceful or worried about the 'other guys' missiles. LOL

Yes, I can see where one might laugh, were one ignorant of the history between the two.

There is very much a need for a global solution to global problems.

In rare cases, certainly.

Famine, disease, pollution and war are all global problems...and unless you think we should just let it all continue...or the US should, or even can, solve it all....we need a global body to do it.

In case it escaped your notice, police forces, global or otherwise, have nothing to do with famine, disease and pollution. Wars are not necessarily a global problem, and are simply a pretext for considering a UN global force.

Again you want to starve the UN of resources, and then complain because it didn't produce all the miracles you wanted it too over the years. This takes effort you know...doesn't all happen by itself.

Again? I never stated I wished to 'starve' it of resources. I stated it would a fucking terrible police force, and has a terrible record in that regard.

There is no Santa Claus.

I'm glad you finally came to that conclusion. You may want to sit down for this, but there's no Easter Bunny, either.

You want solutions with no effort whatever...or the lazy man's way to world peace.

Are you even bothering to read what I write? I haven't stated that I do want UN-based solutions of any nature, so it's impossible to conclude that I want solutions with no effort.

Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.

I suppose it's too much to ask to ask you not to assume too much.

[StandWatie]

28. uh, yeah..

the UN really fucked up El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique, etc.. vs. the huge success unilateral invasions have had.

I don't think it's perfect, but not for your black helicopter, rooted in internationalist paranoia worldview.

[el_gato]

32. you expose your own bad arguement

obviously the UN did nothing to stop Reagan and previously Nixon/Kissinger's bloody murder all over latin america.

[Maple]

38. And they had the ability to do that

with no money and no forces....how exactly?

[StandWatie]

39. they cleaned up the mess afterwords..

by all means I don't think the UN can work with the Security Council in place now as a means of enforcing international law against anyone but the weak. This doesn't discount the notion of an international police force, though.

[Character Assassin]

47. Those were primarily due to the Superpowers, not the UN

And to insist otherwise is to ignore history.

I don't think it's perfect, but not for your black helicopter, rooted in internationalist paranoia worldview.

I'm neither paranoid nor believe in 'black helicopters', but then I actually bother to reivew their record in such matters and don't blather about things I'm ignorant of.

I suggest you might do the same.

[StandWatie]

51. you are joking

What interest did the "Superpowers" have in solving any of that? What did they even really contribute?

[Character Assassin]

59. Those were primarily proxy wars between the two powers

When either side (or both) decided that whatever conflict was no longer in its interest, the UN was allowed in as a cosmetic peacekeeper.

[StandWatie]

60. right..

I don't disagree at all, the UN is fairly useless when it's opposed by someone on the Security Council but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work at all, it means you need to get rid of veto power.

[Maple]

57. And the superpowers were.........?

The 'peace-loving' US and USSR?

I don't think so...and neither does anyone else.

It took a lot to keep them from each other's throats.

Brush fires all over the world for 50 years that had to be kept from flaring up into WWIII.

There are black helicopters btw...but they belong to the US, not the UN.

[Character Assassin]

61. See post #46

[ArkDem]

42. We already have too many cops,

in my opinion.

[Maple]

44. We aren't talking about cops

We are talking about soldiers...peacemakers and peacekeepers.

And if there was a global force of them...many countries would realize they didn't need to pay for a standing military...which eats up resources that could be better utilized for food, shelter, education and medical care.

[Hanuman]

54. Tyranny breeder

This idea creates an atmosphere ripe for tyranny.

Whether you believe it might come from the likes of despotic nation-ettes with horrible human rights abuse problems - or - from the United States throwing it's weight around and attempting to control the world, you must always remember the maxim that power corrupts. You're just enabling corruption here by funneling more power to an agency that does not need it.

Currently the UN can operate as a police force if it votes to do so.

Personally, I think the UN should stick with relief aid and sanctions, because beyond that, quite frankly, it's track record hasn't been stellar.

[Maple]

67. Oh nonsense

You have two candidates who run for president...one gets in and sets about being dictatorial to the entire world. With apparently no one in the US able to stop him, medically or by law.

Or you have a body made up of 191 countries...all with a vote.

Don't extrapolate your current mess to the world.

The UN can certainly vote to operate a police force....however it also takes troops, joint training and money.

Another one who starves the UN for years, and then wonders why it hasn't produced Nirvana as yet!

[GreenArrow]

56. we're talking about stormtoopers,

Star Wars style, protecting the Corporate Empire against anyone who challenges its primacy or disagrees with its aims.

[Maple]

68. Absurdities abound here I see

This is not a movie.

UN peacekeepers have operated for years without Darth...and without being part of your 'corporate evil' ideological nonsense.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Cost

How are you going tu fund a military -- complete with troops and logistics to handle situations around the world simultaneously -- without an ENORMOUS amount of cash? You are talking about a military that should be able to deploy thousands of soldiers at a moment's notice anywhere in the world. They would have to be loyal ONLY to the UN, not their native lands and they would have to have the hardware that could take on almost any conventional army.

Sounds like a huge fucking power grab for the UN. If it happens, I predict a war with the U.S., Russia and others in less than two decades. (It would take them easily 10 years just to get the army up and ready. After that, it would only be a matter of time.)

[ArkDem]

64. Sounds like you are saying we need them to

protect and serve.

[CentristDemocrat]

49. In short, no.

I am not a fan of this internationalism.

[GreenArrow]

50. If you want to get real tinfoil

you might suggest that W and the gang are screwing things up intentionally, in order to subvert the US's (and other countries') autonomy. They are taking the back door approach, so to speak. Talk loudly about PNAC etc, while all the while plotting a global empire that is not rooted in any one country.

[el_gato]

52. nothing tinfoil about that

They openly advocate that.
That's what globalization is all about, a world of, for, and by corporate oligarchs.

[Maple]

70. To answer everyone at once

and save on the hysterical xenophobia and paranoia here....yes, it's globalization.

No it's nothing to do with corporations and takeovers...deep six the socialist rhetoric left over from the last century, and live in this era for a nice change.

Yes, it costs money to run....yes you pay far more than that now for war. This would save you money.

The UN force wouldn't be fighting with Russia or anyone else. Whyever would they unless Russia invaded someone else's country? In which case the people of the world would have to vote on it.

I don't think most of you have the first clue about the UN.

You have swallowed all the right wing propaganda, and not once investigated on your own.

SHAME! Democrats are supposed to be different.

[el_gato]

72. for the last time

your ideas on this "global police force" are delusional.
You cannot state how it would work other than vague assertions
that it would be magnanimous in its implementation, which all
of us who live in the real world know better.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Chechnya

How do you think your global police force would like what's going on in Chechnya right now?

[JVS]

73. Will there be robots?

I like robots

[PATRICK]

76. something sounds bad about this 'rational" idea

First it is very untimely and depends on the irony of having the vast majority of nations agree- which if they could there wouldn't be a need or a problem. Circular reasoning abounds here because this looks like a choice B answer to a larger problem and one that could falsely be misapplied and abused while situation A goes unchecked.

It's like calling for a Constitutional Convention, major Gun Control or nationalization of utilities. The real issue is dealing with why this is a waste of time.